er by first
placing the manuscript in Thorpe's hands or by pointing out the means by
which a copy might be acquired. To assign such significance to the word
'begetter' was entirely in Thorpe's vein. Thorpe described his role in
the piratical enterprise of the 'Sonnets' as that of 'the well-wishing
adventurer in setting forth,' _i.e._, the hopeful speculator in the
scheme. 'Mr. W. H.' doubtless played the almost equally important
part--one as well known then as now in commercial operations--of the
'vender' of the property to be exploited."

The Southampton theory is reared into a fine air-castle by Gerald Massey
in his lengthy book on the Sonnets--truly entertaining reading but too
ingenious to be convincing.

Finally Mr. Lee in his book looks at the subject in an unbiased and
perfectly sane way. He thinks the opening Sonnets are to the Earl of
Southampton, known to be Shakespeare's patron, but he warns us that
exaggerated devotion was the hall-mark of the Sonnets of the age, and
therefore what Shakespeare says of his young patron in these Sonnets
need not be taken too literally as expressing the poet's sentiments,
though he admits there may be a note of genuine feeling in them. Also he
thinks that some of the sonnets reflecting moods of melancholy or a
sense of sin may reveal the writer's inner consciousness. Possibly, too,
the story of the "dark lady" may have some basis in fact, though he
insists, "There is no clue to the lady's identity, and speculation on
the topic is useless." Furthermore, he thinks it doubtful whether all
the words in these Sonnets are to be taken with the seriousness implied,
the affair probably belonging only to the annals of gallantry.

It will be seen from the poem that Browning took the uncompromisingly
non-autobiographical view of the Sonnets. In this stand present
authoritative opinion would not justify him, but it speaks well for his
insight and sympathy that he was not fascinated by the William Herbert
theory which, at the time he wrote the poem, was very much in the air.

In "Shop" is given, in a way, the obverse side of the idea. If it is
proved that the dramatic poet does not allow himself to appear in his
work, the step toward regarding him as having no individuality aside
from his work is an easy one. The allusions in the poem to the
mercenariness of the "Shop-Keeper" seem to hit at the criticisms of
Shakespeare's thrift, which enabled him to buy a home in his native
place and re